Attention if you have renewed your paid membership on the site but it has not taken effect within 24 hours please send the tech account a private message here to get your account corrected and for further instruction. There is a connectivity error with Paypal and the site

The Arms law was specifically passed because of the attempt to bankrupt manufacturers through lawsuits for everything.

Granted, they are just allowing the case to go to discovery, so they will need to then show that it fits into the exemption of the Arms law. I cant' see any way it could prove they targeted school shooters or something equally silly like that, and I'm not familiar with any video game having Bushmaster rifles at the time, at Bushmasters request?

So it's just going to mean money wasted by Remington, as most of the lawsuits are intended to do.

It was allowed under a pretty narrow ruling. This being that an improper marketing strategy was used. That marketing was directed towards young people to be inclusive of even a video game. We will of course see going forward.

On the face of it, this lawsuit is patently ridiculous. The exemption to the firearms manufacturers' protection law is for advertising the product to be used for, or useful for, illegal activities. I probably have not seen every Remington advertisement ever made, but I have never seen one saying "Remington: The gun of choice for school shooters" or "When you're thinking about committing a shopping mall massacre, think Remington."

Remington ads, for their "tactical" firearms, have always been focused on self & third-party defense, survival, and law enforcement utility.

Even if Remington WAS marketing their rifles for illegal uses, it wouldn't come into play in this case. The shooter didn't see a Remington ad and say, "Gee, that's the ticket. I need to go out and buy a Remington to use for my school massacre." He broke into his mother's gun safe and stole the rifle! How on earth any court could entertain, let alone allow, an "improper marketing" argument in this case completely boggles my mind.

It was allowed under a pretty narrow ruling. This being that an improper marketing strategy was used. That marketing was directed towards young people to be inclusive of even a video game. We will of course see going forward.

They claim that Remington marketed the weapon “as a highly lethal weapon designed for purposes that are illegal — namely, killing other human beings.”

Well that isn't true either if the killing of other humans qualifies as legal self defense. If the case proceeds under a Lefty Obama type judge or a jury of liberal morons, they won't care about narrowness or the wording of the ruling. All they want is an opening and this might be it. Once again, another opportunity for a renegade judiciary to negate the law. This is how they do it.

the attorneys are just using them hoping for a class action afterwards that makes them billions.

100%

__________________"Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more. You should never do less." - Gen. Robert E. LeeRLTW!"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace." - Thomas Paine

This is a very narrow marketing lawsuit only that just happens to involve firearms. The SCOTUS was right to deny, but sadly the left will both see and spin it as supporting their anti 2A position. We need to remind people this is theatre and not the destruction and impending doom the anti's are claming.

__________________"A 1911 catches the eye in a way that only a true icon can. The gun is a part of our national fabric..."
- AC

Dodge markets their Demon as the bad'est production car on the road. So if an idiot driver gets one by legal or illegal means and kills 10 people, victims can sue Dodge?

Seems like no maker of anything can market their stuff as "the best" any longer.

Makes no sense. Not sure SCOTUS is all good.

Gee, what was your first clue?

__________________"Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more. You should never do less." - Gen. Robert E. LeeRLTW!"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace." - Thomas Paine

Dodge markets their Demon as the bad'est production car on the road. So if an idiot driver gets one by legal or illegal means and kills 10 people, victims can sue Dodge?

I hear ya. But this is where we have to educate the left. The Remingtong suit isn't that broad. If Dodge marketed the Demon in the same way that the Plaintifs are saying Remington did with their guns, then Dodge could be in the same position.

Now, no one in their right mind can think that the POS who shot up the school did so based on Remington's advertising. But that's all the left has because of the wide 2005 Federal protection already in place.

Had the SCOTUS granted, the theatre of spin would have only been bigger than it is now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1911_Kid

Seems like no maker of anything can market their stuff as "the best" any longer.

And that's the unfortunate part!

__________________"A 1911 catches the eye in a way that only a true icon can. The gun is a part of our national fabric..."
- AC

I see this more as a back door way to destroy the Second Amendment. It would be interesting to learn who actually is paying the bill (behind the scenes) for the lawyers. I'll bet its one of the Soros/Bloomberg organizations.

NOTICE TO USERS OF THIS SITE: By continuing to use this site, you certify that you have read and agree to abide by the Legal Terms of Use. All information, data, text or other materials ("Content") posted to this site by any users are the sole responsibility of those users. 1911Forum does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity, or quality of such Content.